First Nat. Bank v. Lewis

• Decision Date: 23 June 1896
• Docket Number: 701
• Court: Utah Supreme Court
• Parties: FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HAILEY, IDAHO, RESPONDENT, v. HYRUM D. LEWIS AND J. S. LEWIS, EXECUTORS, APPELLANTS

45 P. 890

13 Utah 507

FIRST NATIONAL BANK OF HAILEY, IDAHO, RESPONDENT, v. HYRUM D. LEWIS AND J. S. LEWIS, EXECUTORS, APPELLANTS

No. 701

Supreme Court of Utah

June 23, 1896

Appeal from the Second district court, Weber county. Hon. H. H Rolapp, Judge.

Action by the First National Bank of Hailey, Idaho, against Hyrum D Lewis and others. An appeal was taken from a territorial district court to the Territorial supreme court on an order of the judge, granting a new trial. The supreme court amended the judgment of the court below, which was entered by that court accordingly. From the judgment entered in pursuance of the order of supreme court defendant appeals.

Appeal dismissed.

J. N Kimball, Dickson, Ellis & Ellis, and E. M. Allison, Jr., for appellants.

Brown Henderson & King, for respondent.

BARTCH, J. ZANE, C. J., concurs. MINER, J., did not sit in this cause.

OPINION

BARTCH, J.:

This action was brought to recover upon a judgment rendered in Idaho. The case was tried, and judgment in the sum of $ 4,152.39 entered against the defendants, as executors of the will of J. D. Lewis, deceased. This judgment was afterwards set aside, and a new trial granted. Thereupon the plaintiff appealed to the supreme court, where it was held that the lower court erred in granting a new trial, and the case was remanded, with directions to the trial court to make certain amendments to the judgment, so as to indicate more clearly that it was against the respondents, as executors de son tort. 41 P. 712. A petition for a rehearing was filed, considered, and overruled, and then the trial court proceeded, and entered judgment in accordance with the mandate of the supreme court. From the judgment so modified and entered, the defendants prosecuted this appeal, which is now to be considered upon motion to dismiss, on the ground that it is an appeal from a judgment entered in accordance with the mandate of the appellate court, being a court of last resort.

From an examination of the record in the former appeal in this case it appears that all the material questions which we are now asked to consider on this appeal were deliberately determined by the supreme court on the former appeal, and again passed upon in disposing of the petition for a rehearing. We see nothing in the present record which warrants a reopening and reconsideration of the case. We do not think that the point in reference to the jurisdiction of the appellate...